Run Governance 360 Loop

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, destructive=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is given. The description adds the pipeline and implies secret-key use ("signed access receipt" with agentPrivateKey), but says nothing about failure semantics: what happens if the signature or content hash fails, or whether a partial result is returned. There is mild tension between "create signed access receipt" and readOnlyHint=true, though a returned receipt need not mutate state, so this is not a contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by a compact pipeline arrow-list, with zero filler. Could be trimmed slightly but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-required-parameter composite with no output schema, the description covers the flow but omits the return shape of the receipt and the behavior on verification failure — the two things an agent most needs before calling it on "every page." Adequate, but with a clear gap given the absence of an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 86%, so the schema already documents inputs; baseline 3 applies. The description implicitly maps steps to inputs (html → extract block, contentBody/publisherPublicKey → hash/signature verification, intendedUsage → usage terms), but adds no format, key, or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ("Execute the full governance 360 loop") and then enumerates the four sub-steps, so the agent knows this is a composite operation. That composite framing also distinguishes it from the single-step siblings (verify_governance_block, check_usage_permitted, create_access_receipt) that would otherwise look like alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"This is what an agent calls on every page it reads" gives an explicit, memorable trigger condition. It does not, however, name when NOT to use it or which siblings to call instead (e.g., verify_governance_block when no receipt is needed), so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.